This stupid topic again

But sure

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      He turned out to be a decent president, except for the massive, glaring failure to build any sort of meaningful bulwark against fascism. He had, like, the absolute best justification and mandate to aggressively crack down on the neofascists with Jan 6, but he pussyfooted around and dragged his feet on fucking everything so much that basically nothing has been dealt with or constructively changed since the coup attempt occurred.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn’t. That’s so efficient.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

          Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

            Go on

          • tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            /s ?

            The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.

            A President’s use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.

            This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.

            • Omega@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.

              • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.

              • tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

                Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.

                The President’s authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.

          • Scallionsandeggs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I’m not exactly excited about Harris, but putting a former prosecutor in office at least makes me think she couldn’t possibly put in a worse AG than Garland, at a time when we desperately need a firebrand in the position.

            Plenty of opportunity to be proven wrong though 🙄

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        For the millionth time: every time they’ve done it before, they lost in a landslide. NOT stepping aside is the marginally better play.

        And as a voter more on the DNC side of the floor, after the news today I weep for the next 40 years in America.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          All 2 times this happened before? If that’s the best argument you have for running a candidate that is clearly too old both for campaigning and for the presidency, I think I would take my chances for a third try.